Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

Clause 3 - Formation of civil partnership by registration

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert 
'and has made a spoken declaration of commitment as may be prescribed by order'.—[Mr. Duncan.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out 'and (4)' and insert 'to (4A)'.
 No. 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert— 
'(4A) Each of the civil partners shall, either before or after signing the civil partnership document under subsection (1) and in the presence of the witnesses and the civil partnership registrar— 
 (a) make one of the following declarations: either ''I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, AB, may not be joined in civil partnership to CD'' or ''I declare that I know of no legal reason why I (name) may not be joined in civil partnership to (name)''; and 
 (b) say to the other civil partner either ''I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, AB, do take thee, CD, to be my civil partner'', or ''I (name) take you (or thee) (name) to be my civil partner''. 
 (4B) Subject to this section, the registration of a civil partnership may be accompanied by such form and ceremony as the civil partners may see fit to adopt.'.
 No. 184, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out from 'used' to end of line 33 and insert 
'for or in connection with the formation of a civil partnership by registration'.

Alistair Carmichael: I was addressing amendment No. 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Proposed subsection (4B) could just about sit beside subsection (5), but it would create an exceptionally messy situation. One can imagine the priest being pulled out of the cupboard as soon as the registrar left the room. For that reason, I would be less inclined to support his amendment than the one proposed by the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, but they both come from the same direction and are broadly worthy in their intent.
 With regard to amendment No. 184 and the explanation given of it by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I would say that I share the analysis of the hon. Member for Rhondda concerning what constitutes religious marriage, if I can call it that, or holy matrimony. I take that view as a Christian who was married in church. Throughout my dealings with the Bill, I have taken strongly to heart the difference 
 between what the hon. Member for Christchurch called holy matrimony and civil marriage, which is entirely secular. However, it is right that we should allow for Christian analysis other than that to which I or the hon. Member for Rhondda may subscribe. For Parliament to dictate to the Church what it may or may not do is fundamentally wrong. The establishment of the Church of England notwithstanding, an important constitutional principle is at stake. 
 Having said that, my final thought is that, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, we have a curious situation in which civil registrars will not allow even religious texts or scripture reading to be used in the course of a service, and some sort of flexibility should be introduced to civil marriage. If we are re-enacting the provisions of civil marriage, warts and all, that is one of the warts that we should re-enact for civil partnerships, but with a view to reintroducing flexibility at a later stage. Once civil partnerships are put on to the statute book, they can be dealt with at the same time as civil marriage.

Roger Gale: Order. Before I call the Minister, a point was raised this morning about amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 17. I have received no indication from the hon. Member for Rhondda that he wishes to seek to press his amendments to a vote, but I have to advise the Committee that amendments Nos. 16 and 17 taken together and amendment No. 14 taken separately are not compatible.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I did not understand that. When you say that the amendments are not compatible, do you mean they will be taken separately or not?

Roger Gale: No, they will not be taken separately, and they are not compatible. In other words, it would not be possible for the Committee to vote on all three. Amendment No. 14 refers to a prescription by order, whereas amendments Nos. 16 and 17 insert the relevant words into the Bill. It has to be either/or; it could not be both.

Jacqui Smith: We have had a useful debate on the amendments. I hope that I shall be able to help the Committee by explaining briefly why the Government have neither included a mandatory spoken declaration nor replicated the declaratory and contracting words used in the civil marriage ceremony, as is proposed in amendment No. 14 and amendments Nos. 16 and 17 respectively.
 This is an area in which there is a justifiable difference between the civil marriage process and the process proposed for civil partnerships. A decision was made that the registration procedure for forming a civil partnership should be a written procedure. To that end, we have designed the registration provisions so that it is the signing of the civil partnership document that is crucial to the legal formation, rather than the speaking of any words. We therefore need to be careful to be clear that spoken words could not have—and we would not want them to have—a specific legal significance. It is important, 
 notwithstanding what I will go on to say and what I suggested earlier that the Government intended to do with Government amendments Nos. 23 and 25, that we are clear about the legal basis. 
 In a civil marriage ceremony, the parties become married at the point at which they have exchanged their spoken vows. Registration subsequently records the marriage, which has legally already taken place. The words exchanged are a solemn and important aspect of the marriage ceremony. As I have explained, the Bill establishes a different procedure for the formation of a civil partnership. The administrative registration process does not require words to be spoken by, or exchanged between, the proposed civil partners. In a civil partnership, it is the signing of the civil partnership document that marks the moment of the formation of a civil partnership and the parties' change of status to civil partners. 
 We believe that that is simple and clear, and that it is all that is legally necessary. To add to that statutory steps to require a spoken declaration would therefore alter the emphasis of the procedure and would also risk introducing confusion into the registration procedure to the extent—this is the risk with amendment No. 14—that the legal trigger for entry into civil partnerships would potentially be unclear.

Alistair Carmichael: I am having some difficulty following the Minister's argument. I hope that there is something more substantial to come, because I am not desperately impressed by what I have heard so far. If there has not been such confusion in civil marriages, why does she think things would be different for civil partnerships?

Jacqui Smith: As I was explaining, we start from a different position with civil marriage from the position with civil partnership. With civil marriage, the point at which the marriage is formed is the point at which the couple declare the words. With civil partnership, we have started by saying that the point at which the civil partnership is formed is the point at which the couple sign the paper. In other words, the legal basis is that it is a written procedure. If we were starting from scratch today with civil marriage, I would make quite a strong argument that the legal basis should be the signing and that what comes on top of that should be on top of the legal basis. That would be my starting point, and that is our starting point for civil partnerships.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister says that civil partnerships are different, as if there is some reason written in tablets of stone as to why they have to be. I can see no good reason why they should be different. I have listened carefully to what she has to say and I have not heard her explain why there should be a difference in that one aspect.

Jacqui Smith: This is not written in tablets of stone, but it is written in the way in which we have designed the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to justify that. It seems perfectly appropriate and clear that there will be a legal process, as designed in the Bill, which is dependent for its legal effect on the point at which a piece of paper is signed, as opposed to the
 point at which people make a declaration. I could imagine death-bed civil partnerships, for example. I agree with quite a few points made by hon. Members today, one of which was that in a large number of cases people may want to make a declaration. The question is: should that be statutorily necessary for the partnership to take effect? The written procedure should give legal effect to a civil partnership, but that does not mean that we have not been willing to listen to those who believe that the ability to add a legal declaration to that legal minimum would be of significance and importance to those involved and others around them.

John Bercow: This is not one of the better arguments that the Minister has so far advanced, and she knows that I have the highest regard for her and that there is a camaraderie among those of us who support the Bill, so I hope that she does not take that comment in the wrong spirit. Saying that it seems appropriate to have a written form of registration is an assertion. Equally, one could add that there is no incompatibility with having spoken words as well. The argument about those who make death-bed partnerships is used in extremis. One can always make exceptions, for example for people who are, unfortunately, mute. I briefly worked in Government as a special adviser, and so far it sounds as though the written advice from the officials is, ''Minister, bang on, bang on, don't give way, and''—dare I make this very poor joke—''stonewall.''

Jacqui Smith: I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that this is one of those cases where one cannot have it both ways. There has to be a particular point at which the civil partnership or civil marriage is formed, and the point that we have chosen is the written point at which the two civil partners sign the schedule or the Registrar General's licence in front of two witnesses. If we are not careful and we make a declaration of words statutory, we will face legal difficulties. I know that hon. Members do not want to focus on this, but it is possible to envisage legal difficulties over determining at precisely what point the civil partnership formed and the change of status occurred. We must be clear about where that point is, and it is more modern and justifiable for it to be when one signs, as opposed to when one declares.

Alan Duncan: We do not disagree with the Minister. We absolutely accept that the point of decision is the signature and not the statement, but her argument does not hold together when she says that, if there were a statement, there might be a point of law arguing that that is the point at which the decision is made and that it has to be part of the contract. It is absolutely clear in the Bill that the decision occurs when the signing takes place. All we are asking for is something permissive, but something that becomes a standard, recognised form. If a permissive form of words is defined by order, and the order can explain that permission, it will in no way conflict with her argument that the clear point of legal contract is the signature.

Jacqui Smith: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been rather hounded in the first 14 minutes of this afternoon's sitting, so I have not been
 able to get to the point when I was going to reassure hon. Members about the provision for people to make some sort of declaration.
 I was going to say that, furthermore, civil partners shall have the option of exchanging spoken words with each other. That is precisely the intention of Government amendments Nos. 23 and 25, where the proposal or policy intention is that, when we set down conditions for the schedule or Registrar General's licence that will be signed, we also set down the words on that document. Those are the words that could be spoken by the couple and they may well be—although we have not made the decision yet—similar to the words that my hon. Friend is pressing in his two amendments.

Chris Bryant: I am encouraged by what the Minister says. She will be delighted to know that I disagree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Apart from those two elements, I do not want the state to determine the words that should be used in every ceremony. The funeral service in this country is much more permissive—people can be buried according to whatever service they want.
 When there is too much variety, however, people feel uncomfortable about what to choose. Will the Government explore the possibility of providing some variants that different councils could use? Some of us are nervous that councils such as Kent county council, which has declared its hand on the issue, will make it difficult for people to form civil partnership locally with any form of ceremony.

Jacqui Smith: I shall address that point later. Local authorities are able to offer couples the option of a ceremony or a celebration to mark the formation of a civil partnership and such an event, as my hon. Friend suggests, would likely include spoken words. Not every couple will want to take that up and it will be a matter for each couple to decide with the local authority and the place where they register as civil partners. Some will choose to do no more than complete the statutory registration requirements.
 However—this is where I started on the issue of words and a declaration—we listened carefully both to the argument advanced in the other place and to the argument made in the House of Commons that there should be a form of words that the couple will sign when they register. We will be moving our own amendments to augment the registration procedure by extending the powers taken in the Bill that relate to the civil partnership document. That is the document that each party signs to register as the other's civil partner. 
 The extended powers will allow the Registrar General to make provision by regulations for a form of words to be printed on the civil partnership document. When they sign that document, the parties will be acknowledging that form of words. The Bill does not—and, indeed, could not—prevent some people from saying those words as they sign the civil partnership document. Saying the words will not be a requirement of the registration process but it will provide what hon. Members have argued for, which is the opportunity to make a statutory declaration as 
 they are signing the registration document, or just before. 
 I am willing to go further than that in attempting to convince the Committee. If necessary, guidance could be issued to civil partnership registrars stating that the verbal expression or declaration of words on the schedule, while not having legal effect, is appropriate. That would not overcome all the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda raised, but it would make clear the status of those words, which will, of course, also be on the document that the civil partners will sign.

Chris Bryant: I am somewhat reassured by what my hon. Friend said. Will the partners be able to say, ''I before God''? As I understand it, the Bill will not, at the moment, allow them to do so.

Jacqui Smith: No, they would not. I will come on to the issue of the secular nature of the process.
 I hope that hon. Members recognise that, by allowing words to be included on the document, we have sought to meet their concerns without undermining the written essence of the registration process and causing some of the legal confusion that I outlined. I hope that hon. Members will accept that compromise in the spirit in which we offer it. 
 I now move on to the other issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. Amendments Nos. 16 and 184 would change the provision in clause 3(5) that prevents the use of any religious service while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of the civil partnership document. Amendment No. 16 would remove the prohibition. Amendment No. 184 would extend it with a provision preventing the use of religious service 
''for or in connection with the formation of a civil partnership by registration''.
 I shall take the amendments separately. 
 I believe that this point was supported by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). We have always made it clear that civil partnership is a purely secular legal relationship. The administrative procedure therefore reflects that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said—with disapproval, I believe—such a prohibition is also found in the case of civil marriages solemnised by a registrar. 
 It is the job of the Government, through the Bill, to provide a state-sanctioned and secular approach to civil partnership. It really is not the job of the Government—it would cause some difficulty for some people—to extend the approach so that it is no longer secular but can include the sort of religious input for which my hon. Friend seems to be pushing.

Angela Eagle: I wonder whether it is strictly necessary, given what my hon. Friend just said, positively to prohibit a religious element. There are churches in this country that would be happy if same-sex couples were married within their confines, yet the Bill actually prevents that happening rather than saying nothing about it. Must the Bill positively prohibit any sort of religious element, even among the churches that would not have some of the difficulties
 with it that, say, the Anglican Church or Catholic Church would have?

Jacqui Smith: It is important that the Bill does that. I am not a Church member. It may well be the case, as my hon. Friend says, that at some time in the future all the churches, dare I say it, may have sorted out their attitudes and would want to go further than the legislation allows. However, there are other people who take a secular view and would want to be reassured that there was a purely secular route for entering a civil partnership or civil marriage. We must recognise that balance, and we have recognised it in the Bill by saying that the legal process of entering a civil partnership should be a secular process. I shall come on to deal with what might happen around that process and, in doing that, address the argument of the hon. Member for Christchurch.

Alan Duncan: This is an opportune moment to make a very quick observation. Essentially, what constitutes a religious service? In extremis, just when the registrar is doing his bit, an over-enthusiastic witness could say, ''Hallelujah! Praise the Lord'', and the whole process would be invalid. Is there not the potential for someone deliberately to foul it up and render the event invalid in law?

Jacqui Smith: As far as I am aware, there are not large numbers of people rushing to civil marriages to foul them up on that basis. On the whole, with the exception of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda raised, I do not believe that registrars are taking that approach. Of course there needs to be some flexibility, but it is right that the legislative basis on which we are taking the measure forward should be a secular one and should provide, as I have suggested, some reassurance to those who would insist that the process was secular.

Chris Bryant: The point is that I do not think that this provision is secular; it is anti-religious. That is my problem with it. It means that, for example, someone cannot use poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins, many of which are about love, because they have God in them. Much of the poetry about love in this country, and many of the readings that people might want to use at such a ceremony, have references to God. Many registrars will refuse point blank to allow people to have such readings. It seems bizarre in the extreme that the law presently forbids people to have 1 Corinthians XIII, probably the best-known part of the Bible for many people in the country, read at a civil marriage, and it seems curious, too, that it could not be read at a civil partnership ceremony.

Jacqui Smith: Let us be clear. The criticisms that my hon. Friend are making, as he has been honest about, are criticisms equally of civil marriage. That might well be a discussion for another time, but we must be realistic about what would happen if someone did have a Gerard Manley Hopkins poem. I have to say that, having studied him at A-level, I cannot think of many Hopkins poems that I would necessarily want at a celebration. However—

Chris Bryant: ''The Windhover'', perhaps.

Jacqui Smith: Possibly. However, let us consider how the process will work. We have to set down in legislation the legal requirements and—yes, my hon. Friend is right—the legal restrictions on the part that is strictly speaking the registration process. My argument, and my expectation, is that it will then be possible for there to be a range of different ways in which that process could be celebrated. If people so chose, they could build a ceremony around it. My point is that that should not be set down in the Bill as part of the specific legal details of how the registration is carried out.

John Bercow: I understand that the purport of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda here and elsewhere is to remove the prohibition on a religious ceremony or the use of religious premises. However, on the specific point about religiosity, does the Minister accept that the precise text of amendment No. 16 does not present a problem in that respect? It is simply an affirmation. It does not even contain a reference to God. I should like to know whether the Minister is suggesting that the words could be potentially acceptable to her, perhaps through amendment No. 25, as a statement in writing, but that they are not acceptable as a spoken form. If so, if the former is acceptable, why is the latter not?

Jacqui Smith: I may have referred to the wrong amendment, but my hon. Friend has tabled two amendments, one of which is about a spoken form of words. We have discussed that at some length. The other is about the removal of the prohibition on religious activities taking place during the course of registration, and that is the amendment that I am addressing at the moment.
 I do not know whether I can reassure my hon. Friend, but it is the case that the Registrar General is currently carrying out a review of the content of the civil marriage ceremony because of similar points to those that my hon. Friend is making. Perhaps he would like to pursue his arguments down that route, because he clearly has strong views on the extent to which there should be a prohibition on religious input in civil marriage. However, given that there is such a prohibition on religious input in the legal part of the registration process in civil marriage, I think that it is right that the provisions for civil partnership should at this stage replicate that.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has been generous in giving way. Has she been given any legal advice on this with regard to a possible human rights challenge? We know that there are certain churches that are quite enthusiastic about the prospect of being able to perform, or to be involved in the performance of, civil partnership services. It seems to me that by excluding that possibility the Government are effectively seeking to restrict the right of religious freedom, which would be covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. That is not a problem for marriage, because in that case people always have the opportunity of undergoing a different procedure and getting married in church. However, there is no option at all for that particular expression of religious freedom under the Bill.

Jacqui Smith: I have had legal advice that, although the Bill as it was introduced into this House was not compatible with the European convention on human rights because of the amendments that were made in the other place and which we discussed yesterday, when the Bill was originally introduced, with this provision in place, it was compatible with the ECHR. So the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, I have been given legal advice, and yes the Bill is compatible.
 The hon. Gentleman is making an argument about the nature of civil marriage. It may be that I have identified another route through which this particular argument and case can be made. However, my view remains that this is not the appropriate place in which to change the basic principle that, whether or not we are talking about a civil marriage or a civil partnership, that should be a secular legal process. 
 As I suggested, that does not mean that we should go as far as the prohibition that amendment No. 184 appears to apply. The amendment appears to extend the prohibition in clause 3(5). It states that no religious service can be used 
''for or in connection with the formation of a civil partnership by registration''.
 In terms of the precise legal process involved in civil partnership, we think that the Bill already does that. However, the intention of the amendment is to ban any religious celebration whatever, and in that case we firmly reject it. 
 It seems completely appropriate that once a same-sex couple have formed a secular civil partnership and their legal business with the registration authority is over, they should be free to celebrate in any way that they wish. That may well involve a religious ceremony, religious words or other things. At that point, it seems completely appropriate that it should be up to the church or the religion involved whether, and how, people who have entered into a civil partnership are able to celebrate that and have it blessed or recognised in whatever religious way is appropriate. That is why I oppose the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch.

Christopher Chope: The Minister has addressed one part of my amendment, but she has not addressed the other part of it, which places a restriction on what happens before the ceremony. We know that in a religious marriage, the religious element is followed by the registration. She has argued that in this case the registration should take place first and then people should be free to celebrate in whatever way they want. My amendment would prevent a religious service from taking place prior to the registration. Does she not think that that is reasonable?

Jacqui Smith: No, not necessarily. If someone chose to have a religious service and then go through the registration process, and that registration process did not have any religious input, I do not see why they could not do that. The implication of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is that people would want to have some sort of religious service during the pre-registration procedure, which is the point at which the two people go and register their notice of intent, up to
 15 days before the civil partnership takes place. The idea that a couple would want to do that at a time when they were going to the office and notifying people is rather bizarre. I am not sure whether that is the point at which he was concerned that that might happen.
 However, the argument is the same whether we are talking about a service that happens before or one that happens afterwards. My view is that people and religions should be free to offer those services and celebrations. The concern of the Government and of the legislation is the legal basis for the registration process. I made the arguments about why that process should be secular, but I think that it is too restrictive to try to extend that restriction to the celebrations that might and, I hope, will happen around that legal process.

Alan Duncan: Given that there can be no religious service while the civil partnership registrar is officiating, is it not the case that even as the Bill is constituted there can be a clear-cut 20 minutes in which the documents are signed and the partners say, ''Thanks, registrar. You might not have to hop it but your official duties are over and we're going to have a religious service.'' That is permissible as an immediately consecutive event, is it not?

Jacqui Smith: I believe that that would be permissible. The point is whether the legal process has a religious element to it. I think that there would, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, be all sorts of ways for that event to happen. Before I finish, I reiterate—going back to the issue about the declaration—that I hope that hon. Members will recognise the considerable progress that the Government have been willing to make in recognising the understandable concerns that there should be an opportunity for a spoken declaration. I hope that people will recognise that progress and withdraw the amendments that relate to a spoken declaration.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Minister. We have made her work very hard on the amendment and she has been most obliging in going into the nitty-gritty of the detail. I think that she has, by and large, convinced us—certainly me—although much hangs on what might ensue under Government amendment No. 24 rather than anything else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to bring it back on Report should it be so needed.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Eligibility

Amendment made: No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2),'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in clause 4, page 3, line 3, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
 The purpose of the amendment would be to prevent two people being able to register as civil partners if either of them was aged less than 18. On Second Reading, the Minister said: 
''This Bill sends a clear message about the importance of stable and committed same-sex relationships.''—[Official Report, 12 October 2004; Vol. 425, c. 174.]
 As the clause is drafted, it does not send such a message because it would be possible for people aged just 16 to participate in a registration ceremony as civil partners, notwithstanding the fact that in order to establish a stable and committed same-sex relationship prior to the age of 16 they would have had to be committing a criminal offence. I am sure that the Minister and the Government do not want to have the process of civil partnerships tainted by the prospect that people can enter into them under the age of 18. If it is the avowed intent of the Government that they should reflect mature, long-standing relationships, it must surely make sense that no one below the age of majority should be able to enter into one.

David Borrow: On the point that the hon. Gentleman made about participation in a stable relationship by same-sex couples below the age of 16, he makes the assumption that they must be having sex. Does he make a similar assumption in the case of couples who enter holy matrimony?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are dealing with this Bill at the moment, and it is unlawful for two people to engage in homosexual practices if one of them is aged under 16. [Hon. Members: ''Or any sexual practices.''] Yes, but I am addressing this issue. In a situation involving two people of different sexes, one of them may be pregnant, for example. That will not arise in a partnership between two people of the same sex.
 Since it is the avowed intention of the Government—[Interruption.] I know that some people treat the matter with a frivolous air. It is very serious stuff. We are talking about creating for the first time in English law what will amount to same-sex marriage in all but name. I should have thought that people of a liberal disposition—I am sure most members of the Committee would claim to be of a liberal disposition—would wish to listen to the arguments on both sides with some respect. It is very disappointing and does their cause no good, if they start trying to ridicule those of us who come to this Committee with the confidence that we are speaking for the majority. We know that on this Committee we are not a majority, but that is by the bye; we know that we are speaking for a majority outside. Therefore, it 
 behoves members of the Committee at least to listen to the arguments we put forward and address them on their merits rather than to try and smear us.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend has a point when he says that he is concerned that 16 is too young, although those of us who have participated in many of these debates believe that equivalence is important. However, there is a safeguard already written into the Bill in clause 5, which states that parental consent is required for anyone under the age of 18. Does my hon. Friend not think that in the circumstances a sufficient difference between holy matrimony and civil partnership, where two men—two boys if they are aged 16—or girls might wish to enter into a partnership, is already contained in the Bill?

Christopher Chope: I accept that clause 5 is some safeguard, but I do not think it is a sufficient safeguard. I think that I am right in saying that the Government are in the process of ensuring that no one aged under 18 can purchase alcohol in the pub. That would be an absolute prohibition on the behaviour of people under the age of 18, recognising, as the Bill does, that someone under that age is technically a child in law. The Government have placed a lot of restrictions on the activities of people under 18, and yet they seem to be content that one can enter into a stable and committed same-sex relationship at the age of 16. There may be people on the Committee who think that is perfectly reasonable, but I happen to think it is not, which is why I have tabled the amendment.

Angela Eagle: I oppose the hon. Gentleman's amendment because it again seems to create a difference between heterosexual people and gay and lesbian people, this time with respect to whether they can enter civil partnerships or get married. Although he has not mentioned it, the implications are that the age of consent should somehow be unequalised. We have spent a long time reaching an appropriate situation in which the age of consent has been equalised across the piece and regardless of sexual orientation. His amendment would create a situation in which those who were gay or lesbian would have to wait two years longer before they could enter into a civil partnership.
 On the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about parental consent, adequate protection would be provided through such means, and I see no reason why Parliament should legislate to create a completely different age at which gay and lesbian people should be allowed to commit to each other from that at which heterosexual people may do so. For that reason, if not more, I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will realise that, although he has just called for respect from the Committee, he does not really respect those of a gay or lesbian orientation because he believes that they must be older in order to be proved to be responsible. That is a profoundly insulting basis for an amendment, so I hope that the Committee will oppose it.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is quite sensitive about being accused of
 holding a wrong view or showing prejudice. As the hon. Lady just said, he has demanded that his arguments be treated with respect. I have known him for the best part of two decades, and my answer is that his arguments should indeed be treated with respect, subject to one rather important caveat, which is that he should be honest about his motivation for introducing them. As dishonesty is not permissible in the proceedings of the House, I am sure that he will want to clarify his intentions.
 There is a degree of confusion as we debate this matter. Earlier in our deliberations—I shall not dwell on them, otherwise I would get into trouble with you, Mr. Gale; I am merely animadverting to them for the purposes of illustrating my present argument—my hon. Friend complained that, without his amendment to allow registration entitlements for heterosexual partners, the essence of the Bill was discriminatory. 
 Further to the criticisms of my hon. Friend's amendment made by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), he ought at least to acknowledge that his amendment is discriminatory and that it entails and legislates for inequality. It is perfectly open to him to say to the Committee, ''Yes, it is discriminatory. I am applying a different principle to partnerships of people of the same sex from that which I would apply to opposite-sex partnerships, but I believe that there is good reason to do so. I am legislating for inequality, but I believe that it is right.'' However, to try to suggest that the amendment is not about discrimination and inequality flies in the face of the facts.

Christopher Chope: Would my hon. Friend accept that he is labouring under the fallacy—I know that he would wish it to be otherwise—that civil partnership is equivalent to marriage, which it quite clearly is not?

John Bercow: We are treading on old ground. The answer to my hon. Friend is that civil partnership is not the same as marriage, but it is a means by which those who are not eligible for marriage should nevertheless be treated equally before the law. To recall the language used by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton on Second Reading, it is a question of establishing parallel lines, or, as I put it, guaranteeing in the law parity of esteem. It is that equality of recognition and treatment before the law that matters. We can argue for ever and a day about what we choose to call the institution, but what really matters is its status in legal terms and what flows, in legal terms, from what this House chooses to do.
 The hon. Member for Wallasey was justified in making her point about the read-across to the age of consent because, in a sense, these matters are inextricably bound up with each other. I do not have the Division list from the Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill on 10 February 2000, but I would certainly wager confidently that if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch were present on that occasion—as he is an assiduous attendee in the House, I have no reason to suppose otherwise—he did not cast his vote in favour of equalisation in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton and I did. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has never recanted of his opposition to an equal age of consent. We do have an equal age of consent, however, and I think that it is right and proper that we should. Just as we have an equal age of consent, so we should have equality in the capacity to enter a civil partnership relative to the entitlement to enter civil marriage. His amendment, as he knows, would in effect relegate or even demean the status of civil partnership. He is a very shrewd fellow, and he knows perfectly well that that is what he is attempting to do. He is entitled to try, but he is not entitled to pretend that he is not trying, and I reject the attempt that he is making. 
 The amendment is thoroughly undesirable. In the league table, it is not as objectionable as some of the others that my hon. Friend has tabled, but—[Interruption.] Well, I am happy to consult the record on that, but this amendment concerns a matter of important principle. There must be equality, and any attempt—of which this amendment is one—to legislate for discrimination and inequality should be rejected. I strongly oppose the amendment.

Diane Abbott: I have listened with care to the arguments of the hon. Member for Christchurch, and I have to say that as a parent I am most dismayed that he is so dismissive of the provision allowing for parental permission for those under 18. If he believes in the family, which I sense that he devoutly does, he must believe that the majority of parents carry out their duties conscientiously. I therefore cannot see why he is not satisfied with allowing parents to judge whether someone under 18 is ready to enter the state of civil partnership.

Alistair Carmichael: I am moved to intervene to say that it would be nonsense to change the age to 18. When in every other respect the Bill's aim is to remove discrimination, to legislate for one new piece of discrimination makes no sense at all.
 I take issue with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). If she has regard to the provisions relating to Scotland, she will see that there is no equivalent to clause 5, because we have no equivalent requirement for parental consent for civil marriage. I wonder whether, when civil marriage is revisited, that requirement will still be thought necessary, because there is something quite patronising about the idea of someone who is 17 and three quarters having to get parental consent. However, that is really a matter to be determined by colleagues representing constituencies south of the border.

Andrew Selous: I shall make a few brief points. In defence of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I would argue that probably the only justification for it, which is a strong one, is that not everyone's sexual orientation is fully formed by the time they are 18. I know that that is a matter for dispute, and I have disputed it with the hon. Member for Rhondda on the Floor of the House on previous occasions. I am well aware that there are those who
 have a firm view about whether such matters are decided genetically, before birth or at birth—

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Selous: In a moment.
 There are those who have firm views that sexual orientation cannot be changed. That is one point of view, and anyone is entitled to hold it if they so wish. However, there is another school of thought, backed up with some scientific evidence—the evidence of people's own experiences—which says that that is not always the case. At 16 or 17 some people's views on these matters are not fully formed, and all sorts of factors may influence them. For that reason, I think that there is some value and purpose to my hon. Friend's amendment. 
 As regards a difference between the age of consent and the age at which a civil partnership is allowed, it is perfectly respectable to say that a civil partnership is a serious commitment that is supposed to be for life.

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Andrew Selous: I will give way shortly; I shall come back to the hon. Lady.
 It is clear that issues relating to a civil partnership are of a different order to those relating to the age of consent.

Angela Eagle: I was persistent because I could sense that the hon. Gentleman was moving on to another point, and I wanted to ask a question about his first point, which was about sexual orientation not being fixed. Does he accept that, if it is not fixed—and I do not intend to argue the matter one way or another—sexual orientations can go both ways? In other words, a 16-year-old might not be fixed as heterosexual or fixed as gay or lesbian. The hon. Gentleman argues that we should increase the age for entering into all types of partnership, whether it be marriage—civil or religious—or a civil partnership, to an age at which sexual orientation may be more established. Surely he is not arguing that his case can only be made for those of gay or lesbian sexual orientation?

Andrew Selous: I understand the hon. Lady's point. I come to these matters from the perspective that there are more serious implications for same-sex partnerships. My reading of the evidence—and I have also heard this from people whom I have met—is that there have been more changes among people who were of same-sex orientation than among people who have always been of a heterosexual orientation. However, that is a huge subject of debate, and I am not sure that you, Mr. Gale, would tolerate our going into it at great length. This is not the right place to pursue the issue, but I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that there are different views on the subject. I respect her view, and I simply ask her to respect mine. There are many others who think the same way as I do.
 I want to respond briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington about parents, which was perfectly fair. 
 Sadly, my experience from my constituency and elsewhere is that many parents today do not always act with proper care and attention for their children. That is why I am not sure that clause 5 is a sufficient safeguard on its own. The point was perfectly valid and proper, but because of the way in which some people parent, the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has merit.

Alistair Carmichael: If we accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that people do not know their own sexuality at 16 or 17, how on earth can we expect their parents to know it for them?

Andrew Selous: I am not sure that that argument follows. All that I am saying is that I am not sure that parental agreement is sufficient safeguard for someone entering a civil partnership if there is a possibility that their sexual orientation is not fully formed at 16 or 17.

Jacqui Smith: The amendment would raise the age at which a person could form a civil partnership. Clause 4, which it would amend, sets out the eligibility criteria that those who wish to form a civil partnership must meet. That is one part of clause 4 that we are not going to amend. One of the criteria is that a couple are not eligible to register as each other's civil partners if either of them is under 16. However, as we have heard, forming a civil partnership would constitute a significant life decision and a person aged 16 or 17 would not be able to form a civil partnership in England and Wales unless they had the consent of the appropriate person. That is dealt with in clause 5 and is similar to the approach taken to consent for marriage.
 The effect of the amendment, as the hon. Member for Christchurch made it clear, would be to prevent those who are 16 or 17 from forming a civil partnership. Other hon. Members have pointed out some of the illogicalities of some of his arguments. The first was the suggestion that somehow or another people enter into a civil partnership only in order to recognise a relationship that is already long-term and stable. That is not an argument that I have ever advanced. 
 Someone might enter into a civil partnership at the beginning of the relationship to help maintain its stability. There appears to be the implication that there must be some sort of cohabitation before people enter into a civil partnership. That is not part of the legislation; it is not a condition. Ironically, the hon. Gentleman's arguments would imply that that should be the situation. 
 As other hon. Members have pointed out, the arguments about whether or not one is secure in one's sexuality at the age of 16 or 17 apply equally to marriage. This is one of those areas where I believe that there is no objective justification for a difference between the consent arrangements with respect to 16 and 17 year-olds and their eligibility to enter into a civil partnership, and those for civil marriage. 
 The Government consider 16 to be the appropriate age at which people could form a civil partnership; it is the age at which people may marry. There is no good reason to prohibit people who are 16 or over from 
 forming a civil partnership. The integrity of such partnerships would be undermined if younger people were involved in forming them. We have made it very clear in the Bill that that would not be appropriate and it would not be legal. 
 I can see no justification for the differential that the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, but as I am not hopeful of that, I hope that hon. Members will resist it.

Christopher Chope: This has been a short, but illuminating debate. What the Minister has just said about the Bill's encouraging people to enter into a civil partnership at the beginning of a relationship is complete news to me. I had always understood from everything that she and the Government had been saying that it was a way of being able to give legal recognition to a subsisting relationship.
 What the Minister says is that rather like people do when they get married, if they have not been cohabiting before, prior to any relationship being in existence—prior to any cohabitation or any sexual intercourse, to be blunt about it—they would make the arrangements to enter into a civil partnership for life. That is a very different proposition from what we have been discussing before. 
 Earlier, we were talking about the difference between people who have been cohabiting as same-sex partners and those who have been cohabiting as opposite-sex partners. We were discussing people who had been cohabiting and had an existing relationship. What the Minister is saying now is that the Bill will give recognition to non-cohabiting same-sex partners and enable them to have special legal recognition over and above those who are cohabiting opposite-sex partners. This is taking us much further than any of the propaganda that the Government have so far put forward about this. That is illuminating to me, although it might not be surprising to other Committee members. 
 As for my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, it so happens that I had the opportunity to discuss with Lord Tebbit the remarks that my hon. Friend made about him during Tuesday's sitting. It might be important to put that on the record, because there is a similarity between the accusation that my hon. Friend made against my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit and the accusation that he made against me, namely that we are dishonest about motivation. Lord Tebbit is disappointed that my hon. Friend has referred to what was a private conversation, but he is even more disappointed that, as he put it to me, my hon. Friend's recollection of it is ''highly selective''.

Roger Gale: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to put this matter on the record, but I must bring him back to the amendment that he is supposed to be addressing.

Christopher Chope: I agree, Mr. Gale. I was not going to refer to the matter, but having been the recipient of the same accusation from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham as that which he levelled against Lord Tebbit, I had the opportunity to put it on the record.
 As for motivation, let us consider the Civil Partnerships Bill, a private Member's Bill introduced by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I do not think that anybody would suggest that he shares the same views about these matters as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and me, but in speaking to his Bill he said that he did not think that civil partnerships should be available to people under the age of 18. He had that in his Bill, so is it so unreasonable? Yet the tenor of this debate is that it is unreasonable for anybody to argue that it would be sensible for people to wait until they have obtained the age of majority before entering into a civil partnership. 
 I do not regard the amendment as unreasonable; I regard it as being tantamount to common sense. When we are talking about people entering into long-term relationships, there is everything to be said for them being of the age of majority before they take such decisions and the responsibility for them.

John Bercow: Obviously, I am sorry that Lord Tebbit is sorry. Suffice it to say that I have many flaws, which are regularly on display, but I think that I can on the whole claim to have quite a good memory, and I remember very precisely the content of the conversation that I had with my right hon. and noble Friend on 25 March this year.
 I put it to my hon. Friend that he is referring to Lord Lester's Bill, but he is also saying that up until now the discussion has been about, on the one hand, gay couples and, on the other, cohabiting heterosexuals. I put it to him also that I have been interested in this particular debate for three years this month—not as long as many people, I accept—and at no time have I thought that the Government were entertaining an idea of legislating for such relationships at 18, and I have certainly never thought that the Government were thinking in terms of having qualifying periods of advanced sexual intercourse or cohabitation. As far as I know that was never in their mind, and neither was it in mine.

Christopher Chope: I cannot be responsible for what my hon. Friend thought, but if he had read the contents of the House of Lords Civil Partnerships Bill, he would have seen that there is provision for a qualifying period—as he would put it—of cohabitation of six months. He might also have read the provisions that state that a partnership should not be entered into until the age of 18. If he had also read the glowing report given in the House of Lords by the Minister responsible at the time, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn, and he had addressed his mind to the task, he would have been able to imply from that the impression that many other people got, which is that the Government were interested in setting up a system that is separate and apart from marriage and that civil partnerships would have different qualifications and import compared with marriage, and that was where we were. Many people thought that when the Government said they would ''go away and
 think about this'', they were still talking about partnerships with the same limitations as set out in the Bill to which I have referred. We now see that the whole situation has moved on. That does not mean, however, that those of us who were more attracted to the previous approach should be vilified for holding that view.
 The Government, and those who support people entering into civil partnerships at the age of 16, are storing up trouble for the future. We have brought in other laws to limit the ability of children—that is, people under 18—to take decisions, because we are worried that they may lack maturity and responsibility. Anyone who knows 16 to 18-year-olds knows that some of them are very mature at 16, and some are pretty immature even when they are approaching their 18th birthday. We will not go into the position of those who are over 18, because they are not relevant to my amendment. 
 Civilised, grown-up men and women can differ on the issue that we are discussing, and I recognise that many members of the Committee have a different view from mine, but it has certainly engendered a useful debate. I hope that we will have a chance to express our opinions in the form of a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 4, in 
clause 4, page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Parental etc. consent where proposed civil partner under 18

Roger Gale: We are about to embark on clause 5. Considerable reference was made to the clause during the previous debate and I am conscious of the reason for that. As it was linked with the previous clause, I permitted that flexibility. However, I would be unhappy if the same arguments were rehearsed again, and I know that the Committee would not wish me to be unhappy.
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Types of pre-registration procedure

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 6, page 3, line 29, leave out from 'subject' to end of line 33 and insert 'to— 
 (a) section 21 (modified procedures for certain non-residents); 
 (b) Schedule 4 (former spouses one of whom has changed sex).'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment Nos. 24, 34 and 35.

Jacqui Smith: As I am optimistic, I think that we may get through this group of amendments relatively quickly and uncontroversially.
 The amendments are technical and make minor drafting changes to ensure that relevant registration provisions read across accurately to one another. Amendments Nos. 21 and 34 are aimed at simplifying 
 clause 6(3) and clarifying paragraph 7(1) to schedule 4 so that there can be no confusion over which modifications apply to the procedures set out in clause 6 and those in schedule 4. The amendments have the effect that when schedule 4 applies, the modifications in paragraph 7 to schedule 4 apply in place of the modifications set out in clause 21. The modifications in question are those that apply when one of the proposed civil partners lives in England or Wales and the other resides in Scotland or Northern Ireland or is a member of Her Majesty's forces serving overseas. 
 Amendment No. 35 to paragraph 7(8) of schedule 4 corrects the calculation of the applicable period when the proposed civil partners were previously married and one of them has changed gender. The amendment also clarifies the application of the offences in clause 32(1)(a) and (2)(c). If two notices of a proposed civil partnership are required by a pre-registration procedure, it will be an offence for the civil partnership schedule to be issued before the end of the waiting period in respect of each notice of a proposed civil partnership. If only one notice is required, it will be an offence for the civil partnership schedule to be issued before the end of the waiting period in respect of that notice of a proposed civil partnership. 
 Amendment No. 24 corrects an error and amends clause 21(5)(e) so that when the standard procedure is used when one of the proposed civil partners lives in England or Wales and the other lives in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the applicable period is three months. In those circumstances, the applicable period starts from the date that the registration authority in England and Wales recorded the notice of proposed civil partnership. I hope that hon. Members will be able to support the amendment. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in clause 6, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) This section is also subject to section (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) and Schedule (Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships) (immigration control and formation of civil partnerships).'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 97 and 98. 
 Government new clause 10—Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships. 
 Government new schedule 3—Immigration control and formation of civil partnerships.

Jacqui Smith: The amendments relate to clause 6. The amendments, the new clause and the new schedule are intended to prevent people from forming civil partnerships solely in order to circumvent the immigration rules. Similar concerns about marriage are met by sections 19 to 25 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
 The new schedule will apply if two people wish to register as civil partners and one of them is subject to immigration control. It contains two new requirements 
 that must be met in order to form a civil partnership. First, the notices must be given at a designated centre. Secondly, the person subject to immigration control must meet the qualifying condition. 
 Under paragraph 4(1) of the new schedule, each notice of proposed civil partnership may only be given to one of a restricted number of registration authorities, to be specified in regulations. Furthermore, in England and Wales, each notice may only be given to a relevant individual and must be given by both parties to the civil partnership together and in person. The relevant individual is such employee, officer or other person provided by the specified registration authority as is determined in accordance with regulations. 
 A person subject to immigration control will be able to form a civil partnership only if they satisfy the qualifying condition set out in paragraph 2 of the new schedule. The qualifying condition mirrors that which exists in sections 19, 21 and 23 of the 2004 Act. A person subject to immigration control will satisfy the qualifying condition only if they have an entry clearance for the purpose of forming a civil partnership, if they have the written permission of the Secretary of State or if they fall within a class specified in regulations. 
 The Government have taken firm and decisive action to counter the abuse of immigration law by sham marriages, and are determined that civil partnership will not be open to similar abuse.

Christopher Chope: A brief question. How can the Minister be sure that people seeking to enter civil partnerships who are subject to immigration control will comply with the provisions of the new schedule, and what will happen if they do not?

Jacqui Smith: First, it will be very clear that the responsibility falls on those who want to enter a civil partnership, and it will also be the case that there will be designated authorities in the same way as there are for sham marriages. I shall get guidance as to what would happen if someone entered a civil partnership without going through those procedures, but the very fact that the procedures are in the Bill will be a considerable strengthening, as it is with marriage, over the current situation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, even if there is a way around it, that is an appropriate way for the Government to restrict in such circumstances.

Christopher Chope: It seems from what the Minister says that this is a wing and a prayer exercise. For example, as I understand it, there is no requirement for someone who is subject to immigration control to produce a passport document that will indicate to the registrar that they are subject to immigration control. Indeed, there is no requirement at all that someone who is a foreign national should have to produce any documentation at all or that documentation showing nationality or status in the country has to be produced before such a ceremony can take place.

Jacqui Smith: Actually, as is the case with marriage, notice requires certain pieces of evidence of status to be given. That might include a birth certificate or passport. If that evidence has to be given, it will
 quickly become evident whether there is at least the possibility that the person in question is open to immigration control. The situation is far from what the hon. Gentleman accused it of being, which is a wing and a prayer. I return to what I said, which is that I hope that he will recognise the provisions as an important step forward in preventing the opportunity of evading immigration control through sham civil partnerships.

Alan Duncan: I am sure that the Minister would not want me to use the dreaded words ''primary purpose'', or want such a parallel to be drawn. However, is she now saying that if the proper immigration procedures have been circumvented, resulting in a civil partnership, that could be sufficient grounds subsequently for annulment?

Jacqui Smith: I think that I am saying that. Had the requirements laid down in legislation for notice not been given validly, that would be grounds for annulment.

Malcolm Bruce: I seek clarification in the opposite direction from the hon. Member for Christchurch. Many of us will have dealt with immigration cases involving non-British nationals wanting to marry British nationals and seeking entry. We can all make our own judgments about how the immigration authorities determine who is or is not a proper person. Can the Minister clarify the procedure whereby a homosexual couple could persuade the immigration authorities that they have a bona fide reason for one of them who is not a UK citizen to contract a civil partnership?
 Reading the Bill as it stands—and I have been drafting an amendment, which may or may not be necessary, on exactly this issue—the best comparison that I can make is the fiancé visa for heterosexual couples. That gives permission to enter the country with a view to marrying a British national, subject to a time limit—usually a booked marriage date—as a condition. Am I to interpret that such a requirement would also be available to same-sex couples? Or, as in the amendment that I have been drafting, would there need to be an express direction in the Bill to allow that? The status of same-sex couples in such a situation is not clear.

Jacqui Smith: I think that I made it clear that in order to enter a civil partnership, the partners would need to fulfil one of three qualifying conditions, which mirror the relevant provisions for marriage. They would satisfy conditions if they have an entry clearance for the purpose of forming a civil partnership. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Place of registration

Chris Bryant: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, at end insert 'and'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 19, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (b). 
 Amendment No. 20, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (2). 
 Amendment No. 15, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, leave out paragraph (a).

Chris Bryant: As Members will know, subsection (1)(b) states that registrations may not take place in religious premises, while subsection (2) defines ''religious premises'' as premises that are
''designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes, or . . . in use solely or mainly for religious purposes.''
 There are some problems of precision. Primarily, the difficult part of defining religious premises is defining not premises but religion. I will not go into this at great length, but premises used ''for religious purposes'' could include a church hall, a youth club run by the YMCA or YWCA, or the Christian Aid operation across the river. It could include a series of different buildings that I am sure it is not the aim of the Bill to catch. 
 Moreover, many smaller churches do not meet in what we would recognise as traditional church buildings or buildings that were exclusively designed to be used as church buildings. Such a church may meet on a Sunday morning in a youth club, which is used as such for the rest of the week, a gym or any building that is large enough to accommodate it. Some of these churches are profoundly evangelical or fundamentalist and are unlikely to want to allow such registrations. However, the Metropolitan Community Church for instance, which is a largely gay and lesbian Church, operates around the country not in traditional church buildings but in venues of the sort that I have mentioned. The Bill would not allow a civil partnership registration service to be held in a Church of England building, but it might allow one in the Metropolitan Community Church. That imprecision must be ironed out. 
 The other point is that we should allow churches to do what they want. If they want to offer their premises to be used for such events, we should permit them to do so. It is up to the registration authority to decide precisely what premises can and cannot be used, but we should not preclude it from allowing religious premises to be used, particularly those that want to do so. 
 As an addendum, in case there is not a stand part debate, I note that subsection (5) states: 
''A registration authority may provide a place in its area for the registration of civil partnerships.''
 What happens if a registration authority chooses not to do so or to make somewhere available that is wholly inappropriate according to almost everybody who 
 wants to register a civil partnership in that area? What powers would local people have to insist that a decent and proper place is made available?

Alan Duncan: What the hon. Gentleman said illustrates the fact that defining a religious building or religious premises is increasingly difficult. The days have gone when such premises were consecrated ground with a steeple or tower and bells ringing on a Sunday morning. All sorts of religious services take place in multi-purpose buildings and their change of use is frequent.
 This is a perilous clause to draft. Buildings that are consecrated under the established or any other traditional Church are easy to define. Buildings used by evangelical or other religions or denominations are far more difficult to define, and one might find that a gymnasium or hall is deemed to be in use mainly for religious purposes, which may or may not be fair. The whole area is fraught with difficulty. 
 I understand what the hon. Member for Rhondda is saying, but I shall speak principally to amendment No. 15, which is straightforward, as I hope the Minister will agree. Clause 7(2) states: 
'' 'Religious premises' means premises:
(a) designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) in use solely or mainly for religious purposes.''
 In practical terms, only paragraph (b) is necessary to achieve what the Bill sets out to achieve. A building that was designed as a church may since have been deconsecrated and now have no religious purpose whatsoever. The word ''designed'' is highly inappropriate and utterly inaccurate, and it must be removed. For instance, many deconsecrated Methodist churches in many villages around the country are now private houses. On the Charing Cross road, there is a former church that is a gay club. The building was designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes, but it is not in use for or mainly for such purposes. There is another place called The Sanctuary that has never had anything to do with the Church. The point is that this is bad drafting and unnecessary. It is utterly superfluous. This is quite a simple amendment of logic to remove the difficulty. I do not accept what is in the mind of those who drafted the Bill when they used the phrase ''designed for use''. That should be removed, and the provision should simply read ''in use''.

Andrew Selous: Would my hon. Friend's amendment have any effect on chapels at ease? I understand that they are church buildings that are not currently in use as such, but which have not been deconsecrated. There is the hope and probably the expectation that they will be brought into religious use at some point.

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Chapels at ease are essentially those that are facing desuetude. They are not in active use. However they are not used for any other purpose. In my belief, while they remain consecrated, even though they are not in active use, they would be covered by paragraph (b) because they will not have been used for any other purpose. A chapel of ease would fit within the
 definition that I think would suffice for the purpose that the clause is intended to achieve.

Alistair Carmichael: I take the same view as the hon. Member for Rhondda in his amendments. I do not think that it is the job of this place to tell Churches what they can and cannot use their buildings for. If it is appropriate, if it is the wish of the parties to the civil partnership and if there is no objection from the governing body of the Church—the kirk session or whatever they have in England—[Interruption.] It is a parochial church council. I have learnt a lot today. That is surely a matter for the Churches, and it is not for us to intervene.
 I also agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about the definition of religious premises. The existing definition is drawn far too widely and far too loosely. That is sloppy drafting, and it will provide work for lawyers. If the question of what constitutes religious premises was wrongly interpreted by the registrar, would that be grounds for declaring a civil partnership null? It seems that we are making an unnecessary rod for our backs here.

John Bercow: I support amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 15. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has argued for clarification of language and of interpretation. I simply rest the case on the overall argument of principle for which there is notable support in the Committee. That is the principle that there should not be a decree by the state; there should be scope for local discretion under the terms of the Bill. It was put eloquently on Second Reading in the other place by the Bishop of Oxford:
''it infringes the proper freedom of religious authorities to control such premises. As a matter of principle, it is for those authorities and not for the state to decide whether or not their premises should be available to be used for registration purposes''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 399.]
 He is absolutely right. These amendments reflect precisely the same conviction, and I support all of them.

Jacqui Smith: These are amendments to clause 7, which sets out several provisions relating to the place of civil partnership registration.
 I should like to start by responding to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. Provision of civil partnership registrations, including relevant places, will be a duty under the Bill with registration authorities, although they will become the responsibility of local authorities. Therefore, if premises that were offered for the purposes of civil partnership registration were not considered suitable, representations could be made. There will be a responsibility to provide civil partnership registration and places in which to carry that out. 
 The group of amendments can be divided into two. First, there is a continuation of our earlier discussion about the extent to which we should ensure the secular nature of civil partnerships. There is also another argument about the quality of the drafting of the clause—the argument of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton in amendment No. 15. 
 The clause as drafted makes it not possible to carry out civil partnership registrations in religious premises. 
 The Government's position is that civil partnership registration, like the civil registration of marriage, is and should be purely secular. As such, to allow civil partnership registrations in religious buildings would undermine the public perception of civil partnership as a secular registration procedure and should therefore be avoided. The limitation in the Bill to the use of premises that are not religious premises is intended to mirror the provisions that prevent civil marriages from taking place in places with a recent or continuing religious connection. 
 Those who wish to celebrate the formation of their civil partnership after the statutory steps of formation will, as we discussed earlier, be free to do so anywhere they wish. If they choose to organise a religious blessing in religious premises, that will be a matter for them and the religious minister concerned. The Church and other religious groups are completely free to recognise the importance of civil partnerships by offering those premises. There is nothing to prevent couples from arranging to follow their civil partnership registration with a ceremony or blessing in the premises of their choice, which might include churches, chapels or other buildings that have been or still are used for religious purposes. 
 It is important, however, that the premises in which the legal formation of the civil partnership takes place should be consistent with the secular nature of civil partnerships. On that basis, I resist the amendments that deal with the issue under discussion, which seek fundamentally to change those provisions. However, I repeat that the potential channel for those who wish to pursue the argument is the reforms and the consultation—in some cases, they are already under way, I think—and the review of the Registrar General into the precise nature of civil marriage, which I mentioned earlier. That is the appropriate route through which to argue that the Government's position—that we should protect the secular nature of civil marriage and civil partnership—is inappropriate, rather than trailblazing those ideas through the Bill.

Alan Duncan: I am sorry, but I am not clear from what the Minister said whether she has addressed amendment No. 15 or whether she is coming on to it.

Jacqui Smith: No; as I said, two qualitatively different arguments are being made. I am rejecting the first, but the hon. Gentleman might be pleased to know that I have somewhat more sympathy for his proposal.

Chris Bryant: It is outrageous.

Jacqui Smith: Is my hon. Friend jealous, then?
 Amendment No. 15 is different, as it would alter the definition of religious premises in clause 7(2). It would remove paragraph (a), which the hon. Gentleman and others have criticised, and which states that premises would be religious premises if they are ''designed'' to be used solely or mainly for religious purposes. By leaving paragraph (b) on its own, the amendment would limit the definition of religious premises to premises that are ''in use'' solely or mainly for 
 religious purposes. Under that definition, it would be possible for civil partnership registrations to take place in premises that were designed for use solely or mainly for religious purposes but that were no longer used as such. 
 I know that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton wants to achieve some clarity in the wording. The reason for paragraph (a) was that we wanted to include those premises that may still be seen to have a recent or ongoing religious connection with a particular religion, practice or persuasion that would be incompatible with the civil, secular process of registration. 
 As I said, the hon. Gentleman argued on Second Reading and today that the current definition would rule out buildings that were formerly religious that now have no religious connection. He referred to various clubs in various old churches that I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting. Having listened to his representations, however, I can see some force in the point. 
 We would not necessarily wish to rule out a building such as a deconsecrated and disused church that has been converted into a family home—or even into a club—if it was seen as appropriate by the registration authority. However, present use may not be the only factor that we need to bear in mind. For instance, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire spoke of—I forget the term.

Andrew Selous: Chapels at ease.

Jacqui Smith: Chapels at ease. There is also the example of a disused church that has not been deconsecrated, or a small church that has been closed by the Church of England due to falling numbers or the merging of parishes. We need to consider whether that would be incompatible with the secular nature of the process. Our overriding purpose remains to ensure that, as with civil marriage, only places that still retain a religious connection are covered in the definition given in clause 7, and not those outlined by the hon. Gentleman, which do not retain that religious connection.
 I undertake to look further at the question that the hon. Gentleman raises and to revisit the issue on Report. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Chris Bryant: I was delighted to hear the Bishop of Oxford being prayed in aid, as I was the first person that he ordained. I wholeheartedly accept his authority.
 I still disagree with the Minister about the deliberate secularisation and the refusal to allow any religious premises to be used. However, I see no need to press the matter to a vote. 
 The point that the Minister made about buildings that have changed their use is most notably made by the example of Bisham abbey, which obviously was clearly designed to be an abbey. For a long time, the England football team did much of its training there. It is a fine place for civil weddings; indeed, I have performed several civil weddings there myself. I 
 suspect that the abbey will want to offer itself on the market as a suitable place also for civil partnership registration. 
 If there is a means of moving in the direction suggested by the Minister by Report, I am more than happy to wait. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it not proper for me to ask whether amendment No. 15 can be pressed to a Division, or are the amendments taken together?

Roger Gale: The amendments are grouped together. The hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been moved, so it cannot be withdrawn.

Chris Bryant: I answered on the hon. Gentleman's behalf.

Roger Gale: The Committee can only withdraw an amendment that has been moved.

Alan Duncan: I understood that I had.

Roger Gale: If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that he wishes to press his amendment to a Division—

Alan Duncan: I am not.

Roger Gale: —then I would consider such a request.

Alan Duncan: Exactly the opposite.

Roger Gale: In which case, I have just been able to save the hon. Gentleman some labour.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 9, page 4, line 33, leave out 'a registration authority' and insert
'the registration authority for the area in which they reside'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 190, in clause 9, page 4, line 35, leave out '7 days' and insert '6 months'. 
 Amendment No. 191, in clause 9, page 4, line 36, at end insert 
'and at least one of them must be domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application for registration of the civil partnership'.
 Amendment No. 192, in clause 9, page 5, line 9, leave out '7 days' and insert '6 months'. 
 Amendment No. 194, in clause 10, page 5, line 38, leave out '7 days' and insert '6 months'. 
 Amendment No. 195, in clause 11, page 6, line 2, leave out '7 days' and insert '6 months'.

Christopher Chope: The amendment, and amendment No. 190, have the purpose of making the process of registration much more open and publicly accountable, as befits a public process.
 At the moment, the procedures designed and set out in the Bill seem almost to encourage the declaration of civil partnerships inside the closet, as one might put it. It is in the spirit that motivated the Government to introduce the Bill to ensure that civil partnerships can be brought outside the closet, and if that is so, we should have a registration process that makes partnerships much more apparent. Why should a civil partnership not be registered by the registration authority for the area in which the civil partners reside? One has to register a death with the registration authority area where the death occurred. Why are there different rules relating to the registration of civil partnerships? 
 Why should only seven days' residence in England or Wales be sufficient before the giving of notice? Surely six months would be more appropriate, and that is the import of amendment No. 190. Amendment No. 191 introduces a requirement that at least one of the civil partners should be domiciled in England or Wales on the date of the application for registration. That suggestion was first put forward by Lord Lester in his private Member's Bill to which I have referred on several occasions. Committee members seem to think that he was barking up the wrong tree, but I still think that his Bill was common sense, which is why I hope the amendment will find support. 
 Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 insert the six-month provision, instead of seven days, in clauses 10 and 11. I hope that the Government will accept that the whole process of registration should be open and above board, and be part of public process, thereby enabling proper public scrutiny to take place. If the Bill is left unamended, it will be possible for the registration process to be almost under cover.

Angela Eagle: I have looked at the amendments. Although I shall not refer directly to some future amendments, as you would not let me, Mr. Gale, I have taken them into account in my assessment of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, and I must say that I find some of them to have a sinister import that the Committee should explore.
 Taken together, the amendments that the hon. Gentleman has tabled to clause 9 appear to have as their basic aim to make it practically and psychologically more difficult to contract a civil partnership than the Bill suggests ought to be the case. Practically that is so because of the extensions of what I can only describe as living-in-sin time from seven days to six months, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman thinks that all gay people exist and live in sin anyway, so making them live in sin for six more months before they can contract a civil partnership should not make any difference to their immortal souls. However, registration is psychologically more difficult because his amendment makes it a requirement that it must take place where those entering civil partnerships live. 
 Regrettably, gay people face more difficulty being open in some places than they do in others in this country. There is the reality of hate crime and homophobic crime. I know many people—friends and people who have come to see me as part of my duties as a Member of this House—who have been subject to hate crimes and have been beaten up because of homophobia. The hon. Gentleman's amendments attempt to deny individuals in those circumstances the chance to register a civil partnership, which because of homophobia is a brave thing to do, as well as a serious commitment, in a place that they feel is safer for them. 
 Civil partnership is a public commitment, but many gay people face the daily reality of having to deal with their own safety in certain areas. The hon. Gentleman takes no account of that; he says that people will have the option of registering their civil partnership only where they live. That has a sinister import. If he did not intend it, and I certainly hope he did not but worry that he did, he must take into account the reality of many gay people's lives, in which they are subject to homophobic threats or attacks.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: In a minute. The hon. Gentleman's amendment, which would force gay people to register their civil partnership where they live, fails not only to take account of homophobia but has the practical effect of making it harder in some cases to register a civil partnership.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Homophobia and hate attacks are contrary to the criminal law of this country. The hon. Lady is saying that we should recognise that there are no-go areas in this country for people of a homosexual persuasion and that we should endorse that and encourage them to hide somewhere else. I would have thought that it was much better that the strength of the law should deal with those areas where she says that such hate crimes are rife. She knows that my view is that civil partnerships should be extended beyond the homosexual community, so if people want to enter civil partnerships and this Bill becomes law, surely it is the responsibility of the state and in the public interest to ensure that those partnerships can be registered where the people are living.

Angela Eagle: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that homophobic hate crimes are a bad thing. I think that he agreed with that.

Christopher Chope: Yes.

Angela Eagle: I am never quite certain.
 The key point is that, regardless of the criminal law, many gay people have lived with the reality of such crime. We know that murder is against the law, but it still sometimes happens and people who have to deal with risk in their everyday lives have to be sensible about how they deal with it.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Angela Eagle: In a minute. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that gay people who have been subject to such attacks have developed ways of dealing with them and knowledge of where they are more or less vulnerable to them. It may not be desirable, but it is practical.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Lady accept that if a murder takes place in a location the obligation on the next of kin is to register the death in the district where the murder took place? It may not be anywhere near where the victim of the murder normally resided. Does she not understand that that must cause an enormous amount of angst for those who have to go through that process? Does she think that that is of less significance than what she describes?

Angela Eagle: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman now seems to equate civil partnership with death. He might be making an interesting psychological connection and displaying it to the Committee, but it is not one that most Committee members would recognise in the creation of a civil partnership, which many of us think and know is an occasion for much celebration and not equivalent to death.
 I am making a practical point. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would make it psychologically and practically more difficult to be registered in some places and would take away the freedom of choice of people who wish to register civil partnerships. Although some people wish to be married where they live, many do not. People have that choice, and I do not see why those who wish to enter into civil partnerships should not have a similar range of choices. In moving the amendment the hon. Gentleman is at best mean-minded and at worst being sinister. I hope that the Committee will oppose the amendment.

Alistair Carmichael: I am prompted to speak—I feel I have to speak—in defence of my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I fear that the constant quoting of his words, with approval, by the hon. Member for Christchurch risks doing serious long-term damage to his reputation. My noble and learned Friend introduced a Bill of a very different nature, which started with a blank sheet of paper. The Government have taken a different approach. Their Bill seeks to run on parallel lines with civil marriage, to borrow the metaphor used by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and trying to compare and contrast the two Bills does not advance the arguments at all.
 To pick up a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham, the hon. Member for Christchurch should tell us at some stage whether he would have supported the Bill if the Government had advanced it in the same terms as that of my noble and learned Friend. I doubt it, based on everything that he has said in Committee so far. If the hon. Gentleman wants respect for his arguments, it is incumbent on him to be a bit more straightforward in presenting them. 
 The amendments before us are discriminatory. To change the period of qualification from seven days to six months is discrimination for which the hon. Gentleman gave no greater justification other than to say that in his view it was appropriate. He did not go on to say that there was any reason for its being appropriate. I suspect that that is because even on his planet there is no reason why it would be appropriate to have a six-month period. 
 It is fair that people are able to move around the country and enter into a civil partnership. At the moment people do that in respect of civil marriages, which I know because I represent the most beautiful constituency in the country—Orkney and Shetland—where there is a steady stream of people coming to enter into civil marriages, and we are delighted to have them. It is all good money.

Chris Bryant: Do not stereotype the Scots.

Alistair Carmichael: Well, we are not quite Scots, but that is another matter. I will entertain the Committee on a different day about that.
 There is no reason why people should not be given that option when entering into a civil partnership. Again, the hon. Member for Christchurch has not advanced any reason why he regards it as inappropriate that people entering a civil partnership should be denied the same opportunities and treatment as that given to people entering a civil marriage.

John Bercow: I do not wish to weary the Committee, but it will not be surprised to know that I strongly object to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It is a great pity that my hon. Friend has advanced the arguments in the way that he has done. I am not an unduly sensitive person and I do not take personal offence—I emphasise the use of the word ''personal''—at some of the nastiness and insinuation of my hon. Friend's speech a few moments ago. However, I take exception to it because of the way in which it shows a lack of respect for gay individuals and gay couples. My hon. Friend was quite sensitive when he felt that his motives were being misrepresented, but I am not at all sure why, in the course of what I would call an argument by advocacy rather than evidence, he felt it necessary to use expressions such as ''in the closet'' and ''under cover''. That was gratuitous, but I think that it revealed something about the attitude that he holds towards gay and lesbian people. That is genuinely unfortunate.
 My hon. Friend is an extremely experienced parliamentarian, and I do not mean this to sound patronising, though if he thinks it does, that is too bad. Frankly, he can do better than that. I say that to my hon. Friend, who was a sponsor of mine 17 years ago for the approved list of Conservative parliamentary candidates. He may well rue that decision today, but he was a sponsor of mine and we have known each other a long time. I do not say what I am saying in any spirit of malice; I say it more in sorrow than in anger. 
 In objecting to the amendments, I did not dissent from a word that was spoken by the hon. Member for Wallasey. However, there was a certain irony in Conservative Members having to listen, as we rightly 
 did, to her invoking the principle, as she rightly did, of freedom of choice. Conservatives would argue that that is an important principle in Conservative thinking too. If we believe in that principle, as I passionately do—I am willing to accept that the hon. Lady, in her terms, also does—we should uphold it, but it is not being applied in this case at all. The reality is that there is widespread discrimination and that in many circumstances gay couples would prefer to register their partnership somewhere other than the place in which they live. 
 I regret that, once again, the essence of the amendments is discriminatory. I recall, as I think the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland recalled, that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that seven days was not sufficient and quickly went on to say, ''Surely six months would be more appropriate.'' Having made that point without any sort of evidence to support his thesis, he immediately went on to his next point. 
 I put it to my hon. Friend that what he is seeking to do—as far as possible, given that he does not believe that he will be able to stop the Bill—is to devalue the concept of civil registration on one hand and to maximise the difficulty in securing it on the other. I do not share either of those objectives. I believe in facilitating the process and maximising, where appropriate, as here, freedom of choice as to where the process should take place. For those reasons, which I think have been advanced without hostility or malice but with reason, I oppose my hon. Friend's amendments.

Chris Bryant: I shall be brief. I wholly concur with those who disagree with the amendments, but for a slightly different reason. The irony in the hon. Member for Christchurch tabling an amendment to extend the residency requirement from seven days to six months is that that parallels the requirement in respect of holy matrimony. If people want to get married in the Church of England, they have to have been resident in the parish for six months in advance. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman, who has been advocating for some days that we should not do anything that makes civil registration parallel with holy matrimony, now advocates a measure that would do precisely that. In the Church, it is bizarre when this happens. Many people who want to get married in the most beautiful churches in the land, even though that is not necessarily where they normally worship, end up managing to get on to the parish electoral register, not the normal electoral register, if the vicar so allows them—sometimes for a small consideration—or if they pretend that they meet the residency qualification by pretending to live somewhere other than where they actually do. The number of people who live in West Wycombe, where there is the rather beautiful Disraeli church, is quite extraordinary, but whether they all live there all the time, I rather doubt.
 The second reason why I oppose the amendments is that I think that there will be many people, for example in London, who do not necessarily want to have their registration performed at Camden town hall; they might instead choose to have it in the Mayor's building on the south side of the river. For 
 that matter, many people in Rhondda Cynon Taff in my local authority may choose to have their registration in Cardiff city hall, one of the most beautiful buildings in south Wales. As the hon. Member for Buckingham put it earlier, eloquently as ever, we should allow people the freedom of choice.

Jacqui Smith: The amendments affect clause 9, which is the beginning of the provisions that cover the process for the standard procedure for entering a civil partnership. By that procedure, each party to a proposed civil partnership must give their own notice of proposed civil partnership to a registration authority, together with personal information relating to both parties, which is to be prescribed by regulations. Each notice must also contain a declaration made by the person giving notice. Without veering off the subject of the amendments, perhaps I could just note that one item of information that will be prescribed by regulations will be nationality. That might help to address the issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Christchurch on how we ensure that people do not enter sham civil partnerships to evade immigration control.
 The declaration is to the effect that the person giving notice believes that there is no impediment to the formation of the civil partnership and confirms that both proposed civil partners have been resident in England or Wales for the required period of seven days immediately before the notice in question is given. Once signed by the person giving notice, and attested by the person authorised by the registration authority to attest notices, the fact that the notice has been given and the information that it contains must be recorded in the register as soon as possible. That is the first stage of the standard procedure. 
 The first four amendments in the group would fundamentally alter the basis on which same-sex couples could form a civil partnership. Furthermore, they would create a significant difference between civil partnership and marriage, which I do not believe has any justification. 
 For example, although the hon. Member for Christchurch did not make this argument very strongly when he moved his amendment, the effect of the requirement for a much longer domicile period would be that Amelia and Barbara, who met while living abroad, would be required to delay their civil partnership by six months, whereas Thomas and Susan in the same situation would need to be resident for only seven days before being able to enter a civil marriage. Further, I do not think that two people should be prevented from registering as each other's civil partners simply because they are not domiciled in England or Wales, which would be the effect of another of the amendments. There are many situations in which couples might legitimately want to register in England or Wales despite the fact that neither of them is domiciled here. For example, one or both of them might be a UK national who lived overseas. 
 It would be wholly impracticable to make domicile a condition of eligibility for civil partnership. A 
 person's domicile is not simply the place where they are from, or the place where they currently reside; it is a more complex matter, which takes account of their parents' domicile and their intentions about where they plan to reside permanently. It would therefore be very difficult for civil partnership registrars to verify domicile in practice, and their assessments would be likely to be subject to legal challenge. That sort of requirement would place an unacceptable administrative burden on registrars. 
 The point that the hon. Gentleman majored on was his requirement that each of the proposed civil partners should have to give notice to the registration authority for the area in which they reside. It might be helpful for hon. Members if I outline the fact that the Government are currently undertaking consultation on proposals for marriage law reform. The intention of those proposals is to allow those wishing to marry to give notice to any registration authority, as opposed to restricting them to giving notice in the area in which they reside. 
 Incidentally, the proposals, which are entitled ''Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change'', would also make it possible to register a death in any registration authority. What we have quite rightly done—we will touch on this matter in later amendments—is model the Bill on proposals for the reformed provisions for civil marriage. Not least because of the arguments that have been advanced today, I see no reason why such flexibility should not be introduced for the civil partnership pre-registration procedure. That is the thinking behind how the procedure is designed. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Christopher Chope: We have had another interesting debate. What the Minister said about the rationale for the way in which the Bill is drafted in relation to the registrar—it is based on anticipated changes to the law affecting civil registration—is interesting. She has said all along that the Bill would be a parallel Bill to the law relating to marriage as it is at the moment. If Parliament decides to change the law relating to civil registration, I am sure that, at that time, it will also wish to change the law relating to registration of civil partnerships. She is anticipating that, however, and legislating on civil partnerships in advance.
 Will the Minister tell us when she expects the provisions that would enable deaths and marriages to be registered outside the area in which the death occurred or where the partners to the marriage reside to be brought before Parliament? It might be many years before that happens. In the meantime, the Bill will provide a different set of arrangements for civil partners. I think that what she said—very rationally—demonstrates how hysterical the response has been from other members of the Committee to the propositions that I have made. What I put forward is not revolutionary. All that I have tried to do is ensure that we have a system to enable the public—

Jacqui Smith: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that the proposals will come
 forward for a regulatory reform order. It is also our intention that transitional arrangements will be in place so that, in the intervening period, civil partnership will mirror the current provisions for civil marriage. In Government amendments to later clauses, we propose to make provision to make any necessary changes subsequently, depending on what Parliament decides about the regulatory reform order on marriage. So there is, it seems to me, no incompatibility in the process through which we are intending to proceed.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I think that the debate has been productive, if for no other reason than that it has drawn her out on that point. I think she said that it was totally impractical to deal with the issues on the basis of domicile, yet that was promoted in the Civil Partnerships Bill in the House of Lords by Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
 The Liberal Democrat spokesperson for matters of equality, as I understand him to be, is present. He suggested that the Liberal Democrats have at all material times been in favour of a same-sex Civil Partnership Bill, so I remind him and the Committee that the then Liberal Democrat equality spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), said slightly more than a year ago: 
''The decision to exclude opposite sex couples from claiming the rights conferred by civil partnerships will be a bitter disappointment to hundreds of thousands of heterosexual unmarried couples.
Currently the Government treat them as married when cutting their benefits, but Ministers are clearly refusing to reciprocate when it comes to pensions sharing. These couples are under pressure to marry for financial reasons. Civil partnership registration schemes established in London and Liverpool are for same sex and opposite sex couples. The Government should follow suit and legislate to give all unmarried couples the same rights.''
 That was only a year ago.

Roger Gale: Order. Before the hon. Member for Buckingham leaps to his feet, that is nothing whatsoever to do with the amendments.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Gale, that it is very illuminating. It shows the extent to which, over the course of a year, the Liberal Democrats have been able to rewrite history.

Alistair Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech on Second Reading—and, indeed, had he had the wit to understand it—he would have heard my explanation that there is no difference in outcome between offering civil marriage and offering civil partnership, and there is therefore not the same need. If we were starting, as my noble and learned Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill did, with a blank sheet of paper and seeking to create a completely different institution, the arguments would have been different. That was the principle on which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was arguing, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend and I are as one on that point as far as the Bill is concerned.

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Member for Christchurch had his say, and I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to respond. Perhaps now we can return to the amendment under discussion.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Looking at the clock, we have nine minutes in which to debate 72 clauses, which is a highly unsatisfactory way of scrutinising a Bill. Despite the procedures that we know apply in this House, may I invite you to advise the Chairman of Ways and Means that this is what has happened in this Committee, and may well happen again on Tuesday, and that, having done 10 clauses maximum, if we get that far, there are 72 that we have not even touched?

Roger Gale: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, I am bound by the decisions of the Committee, and the Committee carried the timetable motion this morning. However, he will know that the Chairman of Ways and Means reads the Official Report assiduously, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will not be lost on him.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. I am glad that you said that, Mr. Gale. Some people were suggesting earlier that I was the person who was taking up all the time, but I have probably taken up a disproportionately small amount of time during today's worthwhile debates. It is a pity the Government voted down our modest manuscript amendment this morning—it was proposed by me but supported by my hon. Friends—suggesting that we should sit until 6.30 pm. We are now faced with an impossible situation of having to debate all these important amendments and new clauses in the space of five minutes.
 In order to try to save as much time as possible of those remaining five minutes, and in the light of what the Minister said about the proposals to change the rules relating to registration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 93, in 
schedule 24, page 341, line 33, at end insert— 
 'In Article 5 (the income-based conditions), in paragraphs (1)(dd) and (e), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''. 
 In Article 17 (effect on other claimants), in paragraph (2)(b), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''. 
 In Article 17A (trade disputes: joint-claim couples), in paragraph (5)(c), for ''married or unmarried couple'' substitute ''couple''.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Proposed civil partnership to be publicised

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 11, page 6, line 3, at end insert— 
 '( ) by any registration authority in whose area the proposed civil partner of the person giving the notice has resided during the period of 7 days preceding the giving of that notice,'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 196, in
clause 11, page 6, line 8, after 'name', insert 'and address'.
 No. 197, in 
clause 11, page 6, line 9, after 'name', insert 'and address'.

Jacqui Smith: Clause 11 sets out which registration authorities must publicise relevant information of proposed civil partnerships during the waiting period. The Registrar General must also publicise that information. The waiting period is defined in clause 12 as a period of 15 days, beginning on the day after a notice of proposed civil partnership is recorded. However, that period may be shortened on application to the Registrar General, in accordance with clause 13. Under the standard procedure, it would be usual for both proposed civil partners to give notice of their intention to form a civil partnership. Those notices have to be publicised by the bodies listed in clause 11.
 Government amendment No. 22 makes an addition to the list in clause 11. It requires any registration authority in whose area the proposed civil partner of a person giving notice has resided for the seven days before notice was given to publicise the relevant information. The amendment will ensure that relevant information is publicised in the area or areas where each notice is given, in the areas where each proposed civil partner resided prior to giving notice and in the area where the proposed civil partners intend to form their civil partnership. I hope that hon. Members will support it.

Christopher Chope: I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 196 and 197, which would insert requirements that the address of the person giving notice and the proposed civil partner should be published. What possible reason could there be for not requiring the publication of the address, particularly if, as we now know from the decision on clause 9, civil partners may be registering long distances away from where they actually reside?
 I note that, under clause 14, an objector to a proposed civil partnership must give his or her address; why should not the applicant for civil partnership have to do so, too?

Angela Eagle: Very briefly, I believe that this is another part of the approach that the hon. Member for Christchurch takes of making things practically and psychologically more difficult for those wishing to enter into civil partnerships. It takes no account of the problems that printing a local address may cause two gay people who are forming a civil partnership and to whom threats have been made. There are some dangers to safety, and the hon.
 Gentleman, with his characteristic indifference, decides not to take account of them and to force addresses to be published, so that people may be subject to attack. That happens in some places.

Christopher Chope: Surely the same applies to objectors to civil partnership. They may be under attack, too.

Angela Eagle: I presume that that may be the case, but the evidence of homophobic violence and attacks is far more prevalent than evidence of violence against those who, even currently, object to people getting married. I hope that the Committee will oppose the amendments because of the threat that they pose to the safety of some people who may wish to enter into civil partnership.

Jacqui Smith: In response to an earlier point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I think that I made it clear, not least in light of the Government amendment that was made, that relevant information will be publicised in the area or areas where notice is given, in the areas where each proposed civil partner resided prior to giving notice, and in the area where the proposed civil partners intend to form their civil partnership.
 The hon. Gentleman wants it to be possible for the addresses of proposed civil partners to be publicised. On the point of objectors, although it is right that someone who wants to object has to give their address, it is not the case that that address will be publicised. The issue is about whether the addresses should be made public. Although it is right that details of proposed civil partnership registration should be made public so that objections can be raised where a legal impediment is known to exist, publishing details of individuals' addresses is unnecessary. As was pointed out, there is a balance to be struck between the privacy of the individuals concerned and the need for openness where a formal change of legal status is involved. I think that we have achieved that. Incidentally, if the proposals for the reform of marriage that I previously outlined went forward, the situation would be equivalent to that which applies to those wanting to enter into a civil marriage. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 It being two minutes to Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [19 October], as amended this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 12, 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 23, in clause 15, page 7, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
'(2) Regulations may make provision as to the contents of a civil partnership schedule.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 15, as amended, and clauses 16 to 20 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 24, in clause 21, page 10, line 39, at end insert 
'and, where the standard procedure is used in the first and second cases, is the period of 3 months beginning with that day'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Roger Gale: For the convenience of the Officers of the House, I shall advise the Committee that the Doors will remain locked until the end of the process.
 Motion made, and Question put, that clause 21, as amended, and clauses 22 to 25 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 25, in clause 26, page 12, line 18, leave out from 'General,' to end of line 20 and insert— 
'( ) Regulations may (subject to subsection (4)) make provision as to the contents of a licence under this section.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 26, as amended, and clauses 27 to 34 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 161, in clause 35, page 16, line 3, leave out 'registration services provided' and insert 
'services provided in connection with civil partnerships'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 35, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 162, in clause 36, page 16, line 20, at end insert— 
'( ) for the issue by registration authorities or the Registrar General of certified copies of entries in the register and for such copies to be received in evidence.'.
 No. 5, in clause 36, page 16, line 21, leave out paragraph (f). 
 No. 163, in clause 36, page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (4). 
 No. 164, in clause 36, page 16, line 33, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 
'section (Power to assimilate provisions relating to civil registration in England and Wales)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 36, as amended, stand part of the Bill and that schedules 2 and 3 be the Second and Third schedules to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Given that we are taking consecutive Divisions, would it not be reasonable to see whether there are legitimate members of the Committee who have been trying to return to the Room, who might not have been able to do so? I have not known such proceedings before and I seek your guidance whether such action would be proper.

Roger Gale: I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Unlock. [Laughter.] At a time like this, a little levity is no bad thing. I hope that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), who has just come into the Room, appreciates that he owes his vote to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton.
 I should explain to members of the Committee, especially those who do not understand the slightly arcane process that we are going through, that we are dealing formally with a significant number of Government amendments, each and every one of which has to be voted on individually—at least, the opportunity must be created for each amendment to be voted on individually—so it is not possible to expedite such proceedings as rapidly as I might otherwise have done. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 34, in schedule 4, page 136, line 24, leave out from first 'apply' to end of line 25 and insert 
'(in place of section 21) in the following three cases'.
 No. 35, in schedule 4, page 137, line 9, leave out from 'is' to end of line 10 and insert 
'the period of one month beginning with the day on which B's notice is given; 
 ( ) section 32 applies as if in subsections (1)(a) and (2)(c) for ''each notice'' there were substituted ''B's notice''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 4, as amended, be the fourth schedule to the Bill and that clauses 37 to 53 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 26, in clause 54, page 26, line 8, leave out 
'by virtue of provision made under section 149,' 
 and insert 'under section 169,'.
 No. 27, in clause 54, page 26, line 10, leave out from 'if' to end and insert 
'the circumstances fall within any paragraph of section 50(1)'.
 No. 28, in clause 54, page 26, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (i). 
 No. 29, in clause 54, page 26, line 21, after '(2)(a)' insert 'or (b)'. 
 No. 30, in clause 54, page 26, line 26, leave out from first 'voidable' to end of line 31 and insert 'if— 
(i) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is England and Wales or Northern Ireland and the circumstances fall within any paragraph of section 50(1), or 
 (ii) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Scotland and the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(d). 
 (5) The appropriate part of the United Kingdom is the part by reference to which the condition in subsection (2)(b) of the relevant section is met.'.
 No. 31, in clause 54, page 26, line 42, after 'Wales' insert 'or Northern Ireland'. 
 No. 32, in clause 54, page 26, line 45, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert— 
'(8A) Section 51 applies for the purposes of— 
 (a) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (4)(b), 
 (b) subsection (8)(a), in so far as applicable in accordance with the relevant law, and 
 (c) subsection (8)(b) and (c). 
 (8B) In subsections (8)(a) and (8A)(b) ''the relevant law'' means the law of the country or territory where the overseas relationship was registered (including its rules of private international law). 
 (8C) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A)(b) and (c), references in sections 50 and 51 to the formation of the civil partnership are to be read as references to the registration of the overseas relationship.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 54, as amended, stand part of the Bill and clauses 55 to 70 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 170, in schedule 5, page 140, line 6, at end insert— 
'( ) In subsection (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after ''subsection (1A)'' insert ''or (1B)''.'.
 No. 171, in schedule 5, page 140, line 8, at end insert— 
'( ) After subsection (1A) insert— 
 ''(1B) This subsection applies to a person if for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died the person was living— 
 (a) in the same household as the deceased, and 
 (b) as the civil partner of the deceased.'''.
 No. 172, in schedule 5, page 141, line 4, at end insert— 
'In section 3(2A) (application by person living as husband or wife of deceased: matters to which court is to have regard), in paragraph (a), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made
:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 5, as amended, be the fifth schedule to the Bill and clause 71 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 36, in schedule 6, page 156, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (3). 
 No. 37, in schedule 6, page 156, line 8, after 'under' insert 'paragraph 27 or'. 
 No. 38, in schedule 6, page 156, line 18, at end insert— 
Pension protection fund compensation etc. 
 PPF compensation to be included in matters to which court is to have regard 
 29A (1) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 21(2)(a) include any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled; and, accordingly, in relation to any PPF compensation paragraph 21(2)(a)(ii) has effect as if ''in the foreseeable future'' were omitted. 
 (2) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 21(2)(h) include any PPF compensation which, because of the making of a dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to. 
 (3) In this Part ''PPF compensation'' means compensation payable under— 
 (a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or 
 (b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. 
 Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 25(2) cases 
 29B (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 so far as it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 25(2) which— 
 (a) imposed requirements on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme for which the Board has assumed responsibility, and 
 (b) was made before the trustees or managers received the transfer notice. 
 (2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect— 
 (a) except in descriptions of case prescribed by regulations, with the modifications set out in sub-paragraph (3), and 
 (b) with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. 
 (3) The modifications are that— 
 (a) references in the order to the trustees or managers of the scheme have effect as references to the Board, and 
 (b) references in the order to any pension or lump sum to which the civil partner with pension rights is or may become entitled under the scheme have effect as references to any PPF compensation to which that person is or may become entitled in respect of the pension or lump sum. 
 Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 25(5) cases 
 29C (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 if— 
 (a) it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 25(5) which requires the civil partner with pension rights to exercise his right of commutation under an occupational pension scheme to any extent, and 
 (b) before the requirement is complied with the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme. 
 (2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. 
 Lump sums: power to modify paragraph 26 in respect of assessment period 
 29D Regulations may modify paragraph 26 in its application to an occupational pension scheme during an assessment period in relation to the scheme. 
 Assumption of responsibility by the Board not to affect power of court to vary order etc. 
 29E (1) This paragraph applies where the court makes, in relation to an occupational pension scheme— 
 (a) a pension sharing order, or 
 (b) an order including provision made by virtue of paragraph 25(2) or(5). 
 (2) If the Board subsequently assumes responsibility for the scheme, that does not affect— 
 (a) the powers of the court under paragraph 43 to vary or discharge the order or to suspend or revive any provision of it; 
 (b) on an appeal, the powers of the appeal court to affirm, reinstate, set aside or vary the order. 
 Regulations 
 29F Regulations may make such consequential modifications of any provision of, or made by virtue of, this Schedule as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of this Part. 
 29G (1) In this Part ''regulations'' means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. 
 (2) A power to make regulations under this Part is exercisable by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 Interpretation 
 29H (1) In this Part—
''assessment period'' means—
(a) an assessment period within the meaning of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or 
 (b) an equivalent period under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation;
''the Board'' means the Board of the Pension Protection Fund;
''the civil partner with pension rights'' has the meaning given by paragraph 29(1);
''occupational pension scheme'' has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c.48);
''transfer notice'' has the same meaning as in— 
 (a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act, or 
 (b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. 
 (2) References in this Part to the Board assuming responsibility for a scheme are to the Board assuming responsibility for the scheme in accordance with— 
 (a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (pension protection), or 
 (b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 6, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill and schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 39, in schedule 8, page 199, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert— 
'(4) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 21(2)(a) of Schedule 6 (regard to be had to financial resources), include— 
 (a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which either of the civil partners has or is likely to have, and 
 (b) any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled, 
 (whether or not in the foreseeable future). 
 (4A) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 21(2)(h) of Schedule 6 (regard to be had to benefits that cease to be acquirable), include— 
 (a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which, because of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership, one of the civil partners will lose the chance of acquiring, and 
 (b) any PPF compensation which, because of the making of the dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to.'.
 No. 40, in schedule 8, page 199, line 34, leave out 'section' and insert 'paragraph'. 
 No. 41, in schedule 8, page 199, line 36, leave out 'and'. 
 No. 42, in schedule 8, page 199, line 39, at end insert 
', and 
 (c) ''PPF compensation'' has the same meaning as in Part 6A of Schedule 6.'
 No. 43, in schedule 8, page 201, line 44, at end insert— 
'( ) paragraphs 29B to 29H (orders under Part 1 relating to pensions where Board has assumed responsibility for scheme);'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 8, as amended, be the eighth schedule to the Bill and clauses 72 to 77 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 33, in clause 78, page 35, line 39, at end insert— 
'( ) In section 21 (placement orders), in subsection (4)(c), after ''child marries'' insert '', forms a civil partnership''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 78, as amended, and clauses 79 and 80 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 173, in schedule 9, page 217, line 18, at end insert— 
'( ) In subsection (3), for the definition of ''cohabitants'' substitute— 
 '' ''cohabitants'' means— 
 (a) a man and a woman who, although not married to each other, are living together as husband and wife, or 
 (b) two people of the same sex who, although not civil partners of each other, are living together as if they were civil partners; 
 and ''former cohabitants'' shall be construed accordingly,''.'. 
 —[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 9, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill, that clause 81 stand part of the Bill and that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 166, in clause 82, page 37, line 37, at end insert— 
'( ) In paragraph (b)(iii) of section 1(3), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.
 No. 167, in clause 82, page 38, line 10, at end insert— 
'( ) In section 3 (assessment of damages), in subsection (4), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made and Question put, that clause 82, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 26 October at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.